IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/ags/aes025/356743.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Reviving the debate: Forced or unconstrained distribution in Q method Implementation: investigation of opinions on sustainability impact of the CAP - the case of Hungary

Author

Listed:
  • Bailey, A.
  • Davidova, S.
  • Jambor, A.
  • Kirtley, A.
  • Kostov, P.

Abstract

The paper investigates multi-stakeholders’ opinions on the CAP path towards greening and sustainability. The main analytical tool employed is Q method used to reveal whether there are systematic differences in the opinions on the EU CAP. A set of 60 statements was presented to 30 stakeholders in Hungary using convenience sampling common for Q studies. Data was generated through Q sorting in December 2024 under two distributions - the commonly used quasi-normal forced distribution and a free one. The data under both distributions was analysed through inverted factor analysis, first, without bootstrapping and, second, adding additional statistical insights from the bootstrap. The outcome indicated three groups (factors) without any meaningful differences according to the distribution. Overall, the factors showed widespread scepticism towards CAP greening and sustainability. Neither standard errors by statements generated by bootstrapping nor the estimated bias showed significant differences according to the distribution. It is worth replicating the study under different type of forced distribution and splitting the sessions with forced and free distribution in time to avoid respondents memorising their ranking under forced conditions and reproducing them under free choice.

Suggested Citation

Handle: RePEc:ags:aes025:356743
DOI: 10.22004/ag.econ.356743
as

Download full text from publisher

File URL: https://ageconsearch.umn.edu/record/356743/files/Sophia_Davidova_AES%20Paper%20Reviving%20the%20debate.pdf
Download Restriction: no
File URL: https://libkey.io/10.22004/ag.econ.356743?utm_source=ideas
LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
---><---

More about this item

Keywords

;
;
;

Statistics

Access and download statistics

Corrections

All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:ags:aes025:356743. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: AgEcon Search (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/aesukea.html .

Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.